Wasserman v Freilich [2016] EWHC 312 (QB) (19 February 2016)

The defence of honest opinion cannot be pleaded in respect of allegations of dishonesty, as such allegations are statements of fact, not opinion. The defendant's pleading fails to meet the statutory and procedural requirements and must be struck out.

Citation: [2016] EWHC 312 (QB)
Parties: Claimant: Renee Wasserman; Defendant: Laurence Freilich
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 19 February 2016
Procedural Posture: Libel Action / Application to Strike Out Parts of the Defence Under CPR 3.4(2)
Outcome: Application granted in part; paragraph 19A of the defence struck out.
Legal Topics: Libel, Honest Opinion Defence, Qualified Privilege, Striking Out Pleadings

Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Honest Opinion Defence Qualified Privilege Striking Out Pleadings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2

Parties

Renee Wasserman

Claimant

Laurence Freilich

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Application to Strike Out Parts of the Defence Under CPR 3.4(2)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defence of honest opinion under s.3 of the Defamation Act 2013 can be pleaded in respect of allegations of dishonesty
2 Whether the relevant statements are statements of fact or opinion
3 Whether the defence as pleaded discloses any reasonable grounds for defending the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; paragraph 19A of the defence struck out.

Orders

Paragraph 19A of the defence is struck out.
Defendant to provide details of facts relied upon for qualified privilege in relation to each recipient of the emails.